 | |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: MSTC website -
03-07-2005
, 12:59 PM
|
You seem to be unaware of the sense of the word "accessibility" as used in the context of in user interface design. It's concerned with the ability of users *outside* the "most of the users" category to use an interface (web site, etc.). That includes users who work with text-based browsers, Braille readers, speech synthesizers, and so forth, which may not have frames support at all. |
but has everything to do with allowing physically-challenged users
complete access to site contents. Perhaps N! Xau isn't aware that
sites using frames are not accessibility-friendly. The "target" frame
often does not contain any navigatible links to other pages.
By example, the code contained within the home page of
http://ilovemiliofede.altervista.org/ does not display any links to
subsequent pages:
<frameset framespacing="0" border="0" frameborder="0" rows="55%,*">
<frame name="superiore" scrolling="no" marginheight="8"
src="index_top.htm">
<frame name="inferiore" target="_top" src="index_bottom.htm">
<noframes>
<body background="_themes/sumipntg/sumtextb.jpg" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"
text="#000066" link="#3333CC" vlink="#666699"
alink="#990099"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">
<p>La pagina corrente utilizza i frame. Questa caratteristica non è
supportata
dal browser in uso.</p>
<!--mstheme--></font></body>
</noframes>
</frameset>
Frames are a no-no for accessibility. They also create search engine
optimization problems. Besides, frames are so "1998" and Netscape/IE
ver.3.0.
Cascading style sheets can do many of the same things frames were
originally designed to do. Additionally, CSS can be created for
specific accessibility needs, e.g. braille, speech, etc.
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
That includes users who work with text-based browsers, Braille readers, speech synthesizers, and so forth, which may not have frames support at all. |
Quote:
|
if you're Christian, you *can* seek spiritual guidance from a rabbi or an imam. However, you *shouldn't* if you're going to become indignant when the responses are given (as they will be) in a Jewish or Muslim context rather than a Christian one. |
"subjective" word.
Anyway guys, this group has, how many? 15 post a month?
My 5 won't be a big trouble, eventually a sign of life.
Thanks folks and take it easy.
--
N! Xau - sovrintendente agli antani upgradati
la sede del Movimento Salvaguardia e Tutela Cazzate:
http://ilovemiliofede.altervista.org
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
Indeed. "Accessibility" has nothing to do with browser compatibility but has everything to do with allowing physically-challenged users complete access to site contents. |
Quote:
|
By example, the code contained within the home page of http://ilovemiliofede.altervista.org/ does not display any links to subsequent pages: [cut] Cascading style sheets can do many of the same things frames were originally designed to do. Additionally, CSS can be created for specific accessibility needs, e.g. braille, speech, etc. |
Ok. Thanks
--
N! Xau - sovrintendente agli antani upgradati
la sede del Movimento Salvaguardia e Tutela Cazzate:
http://ilovemiliofede.altervista.org
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
Frames are a no-no for accessibility. They also create search engine optimization problems. Besides, frames are so "1998" and Netscape/IE ver.3.0. |
probably isn't worth the effort.
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
Steve Sundberg wrote: Frames are a no-no for accessibility. They also create search engine optimization problems. Besides, frames are so "1998" and Netscape/IE ver.3.0. It is possible to work around those issues; but its so much work that it probably isn't worth the effort. |
include navigatible links on in each of the frames ... but then you
run the risk of creating very cluttered content and, when there's the
need for navigation updates, a real headache for the person who has to
keep track of what leads where. It's far easier and more efficient to
create a frame-link appearance with style sheets.
CSS also solves the problem of accessibility. <grin>
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
Steve Sundberg wrote: Frames are a no-no for accessibility. They also create search engine optimization problems. Besides, frames are so "1998" and Netscape/IE ver.3.0. It is possible to work around those issues; but its so much work that it probably isn't worth the effort. |
#17
| |||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 12:20:32 -0500, Harlan Messinger hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote: You seem to be unaware of the sense of the word "accessibility" as used in the context of in user interface design. It's concerned with the ability of users *outside* the "most of the users" category to use an interface (web site, etc.). That includes users who work with text-based browsers, Braille readers, speech synthesizers, and so forth, which may not have frames support at all. Indeed. "Accessibility" has nothing to do with browser compatibility but has everything to do with allowing physically-challenged users complete access to site contents. Perhaps N! Xau isn't aware that sites using frames are not accessibility-friendly. |
Quote:
|
The "target" frame often does not contain any navigatible links to other pages. |
entire technology by taking a badly constructed site and offering that
up as 'the norm'.
Quote:
|
By example, the code contained within the home page of http://ilovemiliofede.altervista.org/ does not display any links to subsequent pages: frameset framespacing="0" border="0" frameborder="0" rows="55%,*" frame name="superiore" scrolling="no" marginheight="8" src="index_top.htm" frame name="inferiore" target="_top" src="index_bottom.htm" noframes body background="_themes/sumipntg/sumtextb.jpg" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000066" link="#3333CC" vlink="#666699" alink="#990099"><!--mstheme--><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" p>La pagina corrente utilizza i frame. Questa caratteristica non è supportata dal browser in uso.</p !--mstheme--></font></body /noframes /frameset |
sure why the site opens as a frameset anyway.
Quote:
|
Frames are a no-no for accessibility. |
accessibility problems.
Quote:
|
They also create search engine optimization problems. |
section.
Quote:
|
Besides, frames are so "1998" and Netscape/IE ver.3.0. |
implement them properly. For some uses, 'frames' are the best way to go.
Quote:
|
Cascading style sheets can do many of the same things frames were originally designed to do. |
into a 'scrolling div' pretending to be a frame?
Quote:
|
Additionally, CSS can be created for specific accessibility needs, e.g. braille, speech, etc. |
alternative text on the graphics, as well as meaningful <title></title>
entries on the frame pages. Now *that* would help accessibility ;-)
regards.
Quote:
Jake
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:35:15 +0000, David Dorward <dorward (AT) yahoo (DOT) com wrote: Steve Sundberg wrote: Frames are a no-no for accessibility. They also create search engine optimization problems. Besides, frames are so "1998" and Netscape/IE ver.3.0. It is possible to work around those issues; but its so much work that it probably isn't worth the effort. Yes, you can do workarounds. One solution to what framing lacks is to include navigatible links on in each of the frames ... but then you run the risk of creating very cluttered content and, when there's the need for navigation updates, a real headache for the person who has to keep track of what leads where. It's far easier and more efficient to create a frame-link appearance with style sheets. But that's all it is -- an 'appearance'. |
If you need 'frame's functionality, then you need ........... frames ;-)
Quote:
|
CSS also solves the problem of accessibility. <grin |
Jake
#19
| |||
| |||
|
|
David Dorward wrote: Steve Sundberg wrote: Frames are a no-no for accessibility. They also create search engine optimization problems. Besides, frames are so "1998" and Netscape/IE ver.3.0. It is possible to work around those issues; but its so much work that it probably isn't worth the effort. Particularly the effort needed to enable users to bookmark specific pages. |
regards.
--
Jake
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
In message <3964ggF5urk89U2 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Harlan Messinger hmessinger.removethis (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writes Particularly the effort needed to enable users to bookmark specific pages. 'Favorites' --> 'Add to Favorites' --> (create in) --> OK |
 |
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.